Back in April of 2010, Joel shared our assumptions about the role of small sites in the newly minted Stack Exchange network:
If a site does not have enough activity at the end of 90 days, it will be closed down. Any existing Q&A will be archived and made available for download, but the site...
This is largely extracurricular to the answers already posted, but this is important to provide a bit of context…
This site is essentially "done" — released. This is a a fully functional, launched site. It is not "in beta" as you've come to understand it the traditional software development mode...
That's from this month, where Robert answers that a lot of stuff I did read up diligently on meta se is in fact outdated.
@NapoleonWilson I didn't say that. I talked about recent private beta experience and from their own comments I know that a few of those voters haven't been in any.
But voting is always anyone's own prerogative.
I still find it a waste of energy when people apply their current problems or rules from other sites on this site without any relevant literature question
@Helmar It's worth taking a lot of old blog posts with a grain of salt. They're important to understanding how Stack works, but they're deeply flawed as hard-and-fast SE rules.
This section is currently blank in our Help Center. While we can't have an exhaustive list of Arts & Crafts (IIRC, that's something that got hashed out on Area 51), being specific about what types of questions are OK is necessary.
What's on-topic or not will naturally evolve during private beta but should finally be condensed into this part of the FAQ: http://iot.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic I would think it easier to discuss matter here at meta first (community wiki answer for easy editing) and transfer to the FAQ once...
@Helmar A new meta question could establish two things: first, that it takes real precedent in order to have a real discussion; second, that any precedent set on meta without reference to real, tangible questions should only be tenuously considered.
@DForck42 and the rest of the chat: thank you. I know what to do know. I have to rewrite my question completely, to ask only about Michel Strogoff, and make it much clearer.
@Riker Private beta is a time to test the waters of what is and isn't on topic. It's a time to get our feet wet, and begin thinking about longer-term site issues. In order to properly understand some of those questions, writing good questions and answers to them is imperative.
That way, we can look at them later and go "this is a very high quality post, but it's not a question we want to field."
Yes, we can. And private beta is a chance to look at that, by writing a high quality question and high quality answer to an opera question to see if it works and fits.
Besides that, people proposed a site about a thing, not about an effin' question type. I can literarily analyze a beautiful car as much as any other friggin' piece of art.
unless you have a legitimate opera question that was conceived without regard for whether it's on-topic or not, it doesn't count for the purposes of the meta-example-testing
@Riker right. I was actually holding onto my obscurus question for a while. it proved that I was a bit dumb, but I still think it's a good example that tests our limits
@Riker How can you even begin to look at an operatic plot without looking at its music, though? The operatic form encodes the plot and meaning of the story directly into the music.
I'm going to ask a question that I've genuinely had about Hamilton, that's about the plot, symbolism, and story, that can't be answered without looking at the musical score.
On RPG.SE, we only really could figure out how appropriate various things were and why they were appropriate or not after we'd received multiple questions on that topic.
@Riker I've been wondering why Lin-Manuel chose to portray Peggy the way he did, and how that choice of portrayal influenced the way she was (or wasn't) written into critical parts of the story or adjusted other characters in non-obvious ways.
Look, the truth is, "literature" is a label that describes who approves of something, rather than what that something actually is. Everything from poetry, to music, to plays, to operas, to movies, has, at one point in history been considered "literature."
There was a time when female writers were described as "almost literary."
But that's such an arbitrary distinction to make. The words are text, why not the song? How can anyone hope to conduct a thorough, meaningful analysis of music without looking at the... music?
That's true, but it's a facet of a more fundamental discussion. Are we a site about Western-centric, bound printed matter, or are we a site about narrative worldwide?
TL;DR: Don't post questions out of a desire to check/see/test/whatever if something is on-topic. If you believe it is, post it. When we have enough organically created questions of a certain, then we make a meta discussion.
@Riker specifically also one question does not make for an example of why a topic should stay or go, since that one question could have problems unrelated to the topic. on RPG.SE we handle questions where we advise people on how to build a character they want to build, but there are something like 3 specific formulations of that question we've identified that we can handle, and others are too broad or primarily opinion based.
I get that, but it's also important to recognize that these questions are a facet of a broader, important discussion, and not one that's going to be easily resolved.
We could only identify those 3 formulations because we had a lot of those questions over time and could start noticing why certain ones worked and certain ones did not work.
People get hung up on what "literature" actually is. I agree you can fill tomes and university courses with that question alone. But maybe concentrate on what this site actually is for? Noone's gonna think of Hamilton when he sees an SE site about "literature". That doesn't make him a Western-culture upperclass snob or a taxonomical ignoramus.
Coming fresh of another private beta I'm looking a bit worried on some of the meta posts over here. For starters I'll quote what has also been pinned in our chat, what Robert Cartaino the director of community development for SE posted after releasing the recent Internet of Things private beta in...
@Emrakul Also true. But you'll find noone on the street who thinks operas are literature. "literature" is neither an umbrella term for "culture" nor "art".
@NapoleonWilson The problem is, what you think is "literature" has more to do with where you were born, and the circumstances under which you were raised, than anything intrinsically meaningful.
Stack Exchange is, quite literally, 90% upper middle class white males. And that has a huge impact on what gets seen as valuable, not just here. But it's rearing its head here in particular.
"Literarure" as a term is embroiled in that culture, and the onus is on us to recognize that.
It's not inherently bad. That's not an accusation or statement of guilt. It's just important to recognize that what you see and perceive as "literature" isn't necessarily shared by huge portions of the rest of the world.
We're already seeing it. Forms of artistic expression that might be called literature for their deep cultural significance within those cultures are being dismissed off-hand as not being literature because "the average person wouldn't think it is."
It's unfortunate that a topic like literature is as politicized as this, but unfortunately, by creating a site dedicated to "Literature," we've created a lightning rod for these issues in particular.
Then maybe a bit of a better naming for the site proposal (or a huge scope-changing discussion) during Area51 would have been a good idea, rather than suddenly saying "oh, well, we actually meant all things possible".
I stayed out of meta discussions because I'm not too invested in the site (because, well, I didn't ever think I had to be). Chat-complaining without meta is much easier. ;-)
I can understand being listened to and disagreed with - that I'm okay with - but what I've been getting is that "the implications aren't something I want for the site, so I'm going to dismiss the entire line of thought."
If that's what people want in the site, I'm totally happy to go with it. I just wanted to make sure we recognize that we're getting something very reflective of who Stack represents as a whole.
After some consideration I decided to accept the highest scoring answer, so that future readers know that there is (there is, right?) a consensus. Any objections?
I know, I just wanted it to have an accepted answer, so people know there's more or less an agreement. If another answer gathers more votes, I'll reaccept
I've always been curious how names and words are created in literature. Having finished the main Dune books last year, I was thinking how the term "Kwisatz Haderach" came about. Did Herbert make it up, or does it have some history or explanation to it.
@DForck42 Indeed, we don't want to scare away the people who will actually look into how that Dune language is constructed and why above all it was based on Hebrew.
If Wikipedia gives a 3 liner after a minute, don't feel held back to go the extra mile.
In fact it seems like a really good example for a question where the obvious answers, while certainly answering the question very directly, might fall a little flat on the broader question behind it.
Common Stack Network policy is to embrace non-Googlers. The Stack Exchange wants to be a place Google sends folks, not a place that sends folks to Google.
Unfortunately, many sites and some of our users feel the downvote reason "does not show any research effort" is synonymous with "did not try ...
It's also a bit frustrating to spend an hour on a largely original answer and then see someone else write an answer that's just quotes, even if they don't get any votes.
I am starting to see some "ring and wand" questions being framed. Are questions about LoTR, Potter lore, GoT, Dune, etc. which have been already answered ad nauseum elsewhere on-topic here?
@DForck42 I mean, I think I understand why people don't vote. I'm just trying to suggest that these voting patterns might not be in the best interests of the site.
@DForck42 I could have written a "you all stink, you're ignoring good content and upvoting trash" announcement, but that obviously wouldn't be well received.
Private beta is the wild west. FGITW applies double at least.
Having said that, low quality questions beget low quality answers.
I'm picking this, because I'm half of the ~100% quote posters. That question shows no effort at all. Ridiculously enough we have already set the (imho terrible) prece...
@Ixrec I think the author of the answer could have provided a summary of what happened. basically: isildur got the ring after slaying sauron, was ambushed, it slipped of in the river, and sat there for a long time